I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
Arizona political candidates who opt into the state’s public financing system lost a key weapon this week to keep pace with opponents who are heavily outspending them.
The nation’s top court issued a temporary emergency order Tuesday preventing candidates and elected officials who use Arizona’s public financing system from receiving matching funds to keep up with opponents who haven’t opted into the system, the Los Angeles Times tells us.
The order likely will stay in place through the fall — and Arizona’s Aug. 24 primary election — until the court hears a case challenging Arizona’s matching-funds provision.
The ruling has potential serious ramifications beyond Arizona’s borders as supporters and opponents of publicly financed elections look on from across the nation.
This week’s emergency order by the U.S. Supreme Court, issued by five justices, also appears to be another sign of the skepticism by the court’s conservative justices of “legal rules to limit election spending or to equalize the spending between wealthy and not-so-wealthy candidates,” according to the paper.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning spending by corporations — and by extension labor unions — in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling. The court’s five conservative justices said, in essence, that the law banning corporate spending in certain situations restricted free speech.
This week’s emergency order from the nation’s top court addresses a separate issue and strikes deep at Arizona’s attempt to even the odds when a publicly financed candidate is being heavily outspent by an opponent who has not opted into the state’s public financing system.
The timing of the court’s ruling this week surprised many, with some noting the unprecedented nature of the court’s action and others giving the court plaudits for protecting free speech rights.
“I’m extremely disappointed. To take an action such as this so late in the election cycle is unprecedented. Matching funds result in more speech and political debate, not less,” the Times quoted Todd Lang, executive director of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Commission, as saying.
William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice, meanwhile, told the Times that the decision “will allow the 2010 Arizona election to occur without the government placing its thumb on the scale in favor of those politicians who receive public funding.”
Beyond the broader philosophical and policy questions raised by the court’s order this week’s action poses severe practical consequences for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who opted into the public financing system and is being outspent by her GOP primary opponent — wealthy businessman Owen “Buz” Mills, the Times tells us.
Mills has spent $2 million so far on his campaign.
According to the Times:
Brewer had agreed to public funding and was to receive $707,000 for her campaign. She was also eligible to receive up to $1.4 million in extra matching funds because Mills had vastly outspent her. The Supreme Court’s order means she will not receive the extra money this month.
